Red Frog
Not a Dave
 Offline
Posts: 9047
Pondlife
|
 |
« Reply #885 on: Saturday, July 5, 2014, 10:31:09 » |
|
Ah, that's better. Thanks. He's superb.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Tout ce que je sais de plus sūr ą propos de la moralité et des obligations des hommes, c'est au football que je le dois. - Albert Camus
|
|
|
bigbobjoylove
Offline
Posts: 4198
|
|
« Reply #886 on: Tuesday, July 15, 2014, 20:09:52 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
leftside
Offline
Posts: 1220
|
|
« Reply #887 on: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 20:15:28 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
reeves4england
Offline
Posts: 16060
We'll never die!
|
|
« Reply #888 on: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 20:29:27 » |
|
Even Blatter and Platini can see how stupid it is. Imagine being the lucky city who bids millions of pounds and ends up with Burnley v Leicester and Hull v Stoke!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Summerof69
Offline
Posts: 8598
|
|
« Reply #889 on: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 20:41:49 » |
|
If they want to take some games abroad, take them from the current fixtures, and not play an extra game, which is unfair.
The clubs don't want to do that as half the sides will lose their 'home' advantage, and piss off their season ticket holders.
At the end of the day, the winning countries will want the big sides, but Hull, Stoke and the rest....
Will Scudamore just do one?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 20:43:35 by Summerof69 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jonny72
Offline
Posts: 5554
|
|
« Reply #890 on: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 20:53:18 » |
|
I'm obviously in the minority in not seeing a problem with it.
The major American sports leagues have been having a lot of success taking games abroad and will only increase the number of games over the coming years. If the Premier League don't do it then another league will and they'll risk losing foreign market share by not being first.
They can split the big teams up so every host city gets one and I'd imagine they'd announce the teams before the bidding.
Main reason Blatter and Platini are opposed is it could increase the power of the Premier League even further. Though why anyone would take seriously the opinion of people that think getting women to play in tight shorts and Qatar hosting the World Cup are good ideas is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 20:55:10 by jonny72 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #891 on: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 20:53:48 » |
|
If they want to take some games abroad, take them from the current fixtures, and not play an extra game, which is unfair.
Or just keep with the current system of playing a couple of pre-season fixtures against some other big sides abroad and dressing it up as some kind of fake tournament. The Yanks don't know the difference, the clubs get the squillions they're after, the merchandise sells like hot cakes and proper fans don't care if they miss out on the Missouri Milk Shake Bowl Trophy. Everyone's happy. Apart from Richard fucking Scudamore. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #892 on: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 20:55:32 » |
|
I'm obviously in the minority in not seeing a problem with it.
The major American sports leagues have been having a lot of success taking games abroad and will only increase the number of games over the coming years. If the Premier League don't do it then another league will and they'll risk losing foreign market share by not being first.
Ooh, that would be terrible. The Premier League risk losing foreign market share? Too awful to contemplate. I demand they double the price of season tickets immediately to pay for at least 3 games abroad per season. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
@mwooly63
Offline
Posts: 3377
|
|
« Reply #893 on: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 20:55:51 » |
|
I'm obviously in the minority in not seeing a problem with it.
The major American sports leagues have been having a lot of success taking games abroad and will only increase the number of games over the coming years.
The NFL games are regular season ones NOT additional fixtures just to make cash Thats the difference I guess |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jonny72
Offline
Posts: 5554
|
|
« Reply #894 on: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 20:58:21 » |
|
Ooh, that would be terrible. The Premier League risk losing foreign market share? Too awful to contemplate. I demand they double the price of season tickets immediately to pay for at least 3 games abroad per season.
Not sure what your point is. Personally I don't give a shit. The owners of the Premier League clubs do. Scudamore works for them and part of his job is increasing income, so he does as well. You might not like it but it's pointless trying to fight it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jonny72
Offline
Posts: 5554
|
|
« Reply #895 on: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 21:00:34 » |
|
The NFL games are regular season ones NOT additional fixtures just to make cash
Thats the difference I guess
Don't think it would be possible for them to hold 16 extra games abroad - just isn't the support outside the US for the sport. They can also get away with moving regular season games abroad, which you couldn't with the Premier League. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 56989
|
|
« Reply #896 on: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 21:01:21 » |
|
The NFL games are regular season ones NOT additional fixtures just to make cash
Thats the difference I guess
It's not the only issue. You play all teams home and away and everything is even for all teams. You take a regular game out then it fucks that up. Some may not care I suppose. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
@mwooly63
Offline
Posts: 3377
|
|
« Reply #897 on: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 21:15:42 » |
|
Don't think it would be possible for them to hold 16 extra games abroad - just isn't the support outside the US for the sport.
Theres the difference The NFL taking games abroad is to promote the game and give new fans a chance to watch a live game where as the PLs motive is money Greed pure and simple |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #898 on: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 21:19:22 » |
|
Not sure what your point is. Personally I don't give a shit.
The owners of the Premier League clubs do. Scudamore works for them and part of his job is increasing income, so he does as well.
Do they really? The clubs that will draw crowds for those kinds of games, Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea etc already do very nicely out of their pre-season tours, so they don't need a Game 39. Man Utd-Real sold out a 110,000 ground a week or so ago, they're not going to get more than that for a Game 39. Whereas do the likes of Hull, Crystal Palace, Stoke etc really need to be playing out a game no-one except their own fans care about half way round the world? Don't know that there's the appetite for a Game 39 at all, hence why it was shelved a few years back. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Costanza
Offline
Posts: 10653
|
|
« Reply #899 on: Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 21:37:25 » |
|
Theres the difference
The NFL taking games abroad is to promote the game and give new fans a chance to watch a live game where as the PLs motive is money
Greed pure and simple
Yeah, the NFL definitely aren't cashing in.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
